Stop claiming you're either Arab or Persian or Turk!!!

[masterchief_mirza]

Dear users on this wonderful forum of ours

Today I'd like to talk about this notion that almost every Pakistani I've met has, this notion where they claim that they're of Arab ancestry or Persian ancestry or central Asian Turkic ancestry.

I've heard from countless Pakistani claiming they have Arab ancestry or Iranian ancestry, but when they did their DNA ancestry test, it came up 99% South Asian, and I laughed at them.

So let me educate some of you who may have this idiotic notion in your head. Firstly let's talk about Arab DNA. Many pakis want to claim they have Arab blood because of Arab migration during the ummayad and abbassid period, but unfortunately for them, there isn't a single price of evidence that any sort of migration took place ever, and that's because Arabs didn't migrate to the Indus region except for some few places in Sindh, Gujarat and Kerala and even those were minimal, so for pakis to claim they're of Arab ancestry because they "MIGHT" have 0.2% Arab DNA is preposterous and idiotic because you're denying you 99.99% South Asian blood. And all of you so called sayyids who think their lineage goes all the way back to the Prophet, you're just plain ignorant because if you check the history of Muslims in the Indian Subcontinent, it was common practice for Muslims to adopt Arab surnames because of the prestige it brought with it, and the same goes for the sayyid surname, and another common practice in Iran Afghanistan and Pakistan was to falsely link their lineage to one of the 12 imams in order to claim being a sayyid.

An example of this can be easily given with the surname Khan, a Mongolian surname which is the most common surname in all of South Asia. The reason for this is because central and south Asians took on the Khan title as a way of gaining prestige among their society.

So don't go around claiming being sayyid unless you definitively prove you lineage, which none of you can.

Secondly, for those pakis who claim to be of Persian origin. There's no denying that people from the Iranian plateau have been migrating to the Indus region and the Indian Subcontinent for centuries. But if you look at the genetic impact it has had, then you'll see that it'll been next to nothing, and also, Iranian doesn't mean Persian, Iranian is a term for the collective linguistic group of people who vary considerably from one to another and just because your great great great grandfather was from Iran, doesn't make you Iranian.

Thirdly, let's discuss the Turkic migration. The Turkic migration into the heart of the Indian Subcontinent happened after the conquests of northern india by first the samanids and saffarids, both of whom made minimal conquests into what is now Pakistan, and then by the ghaznavids who were a central Asian Turkic dynasty who were persianised. There conquests into India resulted in small groups of people of Turkic, bactrians, and sogdian origin settling into what is now Afghanistan and north-central Pakistan, and even in Pakistan, the Multan and Lahore were the few places where the migrations occurred. After this, another migration did not take place until after the invasion of the ghorid dynasty, but unlike the previous dynasty, the ghorids took control of most of the northern Indian Ganges planes. And yes Turkic migration did happen during this time, but the migration was a drop in the ocean in terms of genetic impact so for Pakistanis who have Turkic surnames like khoja or chagtai, or baig, barlas, Gul, Mirza, pasha, Mughal, etc, for them to only recognize they're far far off allegedly Turkic heritage and disregard they're Punjabi, Gujarati, Sindhi, Balochi, Marathi, kashmiri heritage is pathetic because a surname means nothing to prove where you're from especially in the western-south Asia region because surnames these surnames have been adopted by people for centuries for prestige and respect.

I myself am of 4 different ancestry. My mother is half tajik half Ozebk born and raised in the Soviet Union and my father is half Afghan pakhtun half Pakistani kashmiri born and raised in Scotland. My father didn't give any one of his children his family surname, which is Sharif, because he didn't believe in such things where a surname determines who you are in life, rather, he gave us his first name as our surname.

My whole life people kept telling me I have to chose my father's lineage only because that's how things are done, which is bullshit. Why should I throw away my lineage from my mother's side because of man made ideas of heritage and lineage. I am proud of all 4 of my lineages and I will carry them all with me throughout my life.

So I saw to all of you who are claiming to be this or that. Please stop, you're not fooling anyone other than yourself. You're not Arab, you're not Persian, you're not Turk, you're a P@k! and be proud of it.

Superb post! I genuinely wish I could green tick it.

I haven't yet read through all the wonderful replies and polite discourse you will have no doubt triggered. Also, your thread is in no way whatsoever flamebait.

This is for you:

 

[Mr Happy]

It all boils down to how much people associate with their heritage. It is all well and good to point out that your ethnicity is from an area you do not live in. But expecting that ethnicity to be a character trait is what irks me. It is irrelevant to me if a person claims to have Turkic blood or Arab blood: you are a Pakistani and it is simple as that. I hate Pakistanis who try to play up their supposedly Arab lineage to Arabs from Saudi or UAE: they will look down at you either way (not all of them, but a considerable percentage of them do look down on us). I will say it once more: one's supposed ancestry had no bearing on how they act, and should have no bearing on the country they are loyal to, especially if said ancestry and association to a different ethnicity equates to hundreds of years in the past. What is relevant is the here and now: I hate those members of my family whose first criteria when looking for spouse for their kids is the potential spouse's Syed "status." The Prophet (SAWW) would look at this and have yet another reason to weep at the state of his Ummah, and history has recorded his sorrow at what Allah (SWT) revealed to him as the state of his Ummah in the future.

Well, it's improper to claim false ancestry knowingly. Neither should one disparage another person's lineage.

https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2013/07/24/worst-lies-lineage-dreams/

https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2019/06/19/all-people-go-to-adam-eve/

https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2019/11/20/lineage-learn-family-history/

 

[Lincoln]

Dear users on this wonderful forum of ours

Today I'd like to talk about this notion that almost every Pakistani I've met has, this notion where they claim that they're of Arab ancestry or Persian ancestry or central Asian Turkic ancestry.

I've heard from countless Pakistani claiming they have Arab ancestry or Iranian ancestry, but when they did their DNA ancestry test, it came up 99% South Asian, and I laughed at them.

So let me educate some of you who may have this idiotic notion in your head. Firstly let's talk about Arab DNA. Many pakis want to claim they have Arab blood because of Arab migration during the ummayad and abbassid period, but unfortunately for them, there isn't a single price of evidence that any sort of migration took place ever, and that's because Arabs didn't migrate to the Indus region except for some few places in Sindh, Gujarat and Kerala and even those were minimal, so for pakis to claim they're of Arab ancestry because they "MIGHT" have 0.2% Arab DNA is preposterous and idiotic because you're denying you 99.99% South Asian blood. And all of you so called sayyids who think their lineage goes all the way back to the Prophet, you're just plain ignorant because if you check the history of Muslims in the Indian Subcontinent, it was common practice for Muslims to adopt Arab surnames because of the prestige it brought with it, and the same goes for the sayyid surname, and another common practice in Iran Afghanistan and Pakistan was to falsely link their lineage to one of the 12 imams in order to claim being a sayyid.

An example of this can be easily given with the surname Khan, a Mongolian surname which is the most common surname in all of South Asia. The reason for this is because central and south Asians took on the Khan title as a way of gaining prestige among their society.

So don't go around claiming being sayyid unless you definitively prove you lineage, which none of you can.

Secondly, for those pakis who claim to be of Persian origin. There's no denying that people from the Iranian plateau have been migrating to the Indus region and the Indian Subcontinent for centuries. But if you look at the genetic impact it has had, then you'll see that it'll been next to nothing, and also, Iranian doesn't mean Persian, Iranian is a term for the collective linguistic group of people who vary considerably from one to another and just because your great great great grandfather was from Iran, doesn't make you Iranian.

Thirdly, let's discuss the Turkic migration. The Turkic migration into the heart of the Indian Subcontinent happened after the conquests of northern india by first the samanids and saffarids, both of whom made minimal conquests into what is now Pakistan, and then by the ghaznavids who were a central Asian Turkic dynasty who were persianised. There conquests into India resulted in small groups of people of Turkic, bactrians, and sogdian origin settling into what is now Afghanistan and north-central Pakistan, and even in Pakistan, the Multan and Lahore were the few places where the migrations occurred. After this, another migration did not take place until after the invasion of the ghorid dynasty, but unlike the previous dynasty, the ghorids took control of most of the northern Indian Ganges planes. And yes Turkic migration did happen during this time, but the migration was a drop in the ocean in terms of genetic impact so for Pakistanis who have Turkic surnames like khoja or chagtai, or baig, barlas, Gul, Mirza, pasha, Mughal, etc, for them to only recognize they're far far off allegedly Turkic heritage and disregard they're Punjabi, Gujarati, Sindhi, Balochi, Marathi, kashmiri heritage is pathetic because a surname means nothing to prove where you're from especially in the western-south Asia region because surnames these surnames have been adopted by people for centuries for prestige and respect.

I myself am of 4 different ancestry. My mother is half tajik half Ozebk born and raised in the Soviet Union and my father is half Afghan pakhtun half Pakistani kashmiri born and raised in Scotland. My father didn't give any one of his children his family surname, which is Sharif, because he didn't believe in such things where a surname determines who you are in life, rather, he gave us his first name as our surname.

My whole life people kept telling me I have to chose my father's lineage only because that's how things are done, which is bullshit. Why should I throw away my lineage from my mother's side because of man made ideas of heritage and lineage. I am proud of all 4 of my lineages and I will carry them all with me throughout my life.

So I saw to all of you who are claiming to be this or that. Please stop, you're not fooling anyone other than yourself. You're not Arab, you're not Persian, you're not Turk, you're a P@k! and be proud of it.

Thank you for this post. People need to stop claiming such. We are all Pakistanis and should be proud of your heritage and land.

 

[SABRE]

Biggest curse of Pakistan is living under the shadow of India. I don't recall a specific empire that was unique to Pakistan, it was pretty much always part of Persia or India continuously basically until partition.

Harsh reality is that historically Persians and Ottomans have always been a fiercely independent people who don't like to be ruled by anyone. Pakistanis didn't get the idea of separating from India until 1947 because they were fine living under Indian rule. Turks always ruled Turks and Persians always ruled Persians. Pakistan was always ruled by someone else. Biggest difference between Iran/Turkey and Pakistan is that there was never a single point in history where Iran or Turkey were split halfway between empires the way Pakistan was split between the Persian and Indian empires. Iran has always been an undivided nation and Turkey has always been an undivided nation. Pakistan was a divided nation between two empires for almost all of its life until 1947. That ideological difference is still clear in the national identities of Pakistanis today. Pashtuns relate more to Persian heritage, Punjabis relate more to Mughal heritage. There is not a single cohesive national identity for all Pakistanis like all Turks have the Ottomans or all Iranians have the Persians.

Pakistan did not exist prior to August 14th, 1947. Therefore it could never have lived under the shadow of India. You perhaps mean the Muslims of the subcontinent.

Turks have not always ruled Turks and Persians have not always ruled Persians. Turks of modern-day Turkey are not native to the land. Turkish tribes began arriving in the Middle East and also began settling in Anatolia (now Turkey) during Arab rule. The most prominent tribe among them appears to have been that of Seljuks. House of Usman (Ottoman) arrived later. Ottoman Empire has not been a completely continuous one. The invasion of Anatolia by Temur Lame temporarily brought Ottoman rule to a halt. Likewise, the Persians have been ruled by the Arabs and also Turks. The last Turkic dynasty to rule Persia was the Qajar Dynasty. They ruled from 1797 to 1925. So they have been fairly recent.

Lahore has a lot of history from the height of the Mughal reign but when you visit Iran and Turkey, it really takes your breath away to see how powerful Persian and Ottoman empires were at the height of their power. Persian was always an unmistakably Iranian identity, Ottoman was always an unmistakably Turkish identity. I don't think Mughal is an unmistakably Pakistani identity in that sense because it is equally Indian. One of the great tragedies of history.

In terms of wealth, the Mughals topped just about everyone. Aurengzeb was possibly the richest man of his time and his Hindustan was also perhaps the most powerful empire. If true, this would be a miraculous and surprising economic recovery as his father, Shahjahan, had more or less bankrupted the Mughal treasury for the construction of no-purpose Taj Mahal (he was also planning a black Taj Mahal from himself). One cannot judge the Mughal economic, military, and political strength merely on their developmental projects in Lahore. The city served as the Empire's capital for a short while under Jahangir (more or less for 12 years). You need to consider their other projects like Agra, Fatehpur Sikri, and most importantly, Delhi.

Historically, the Mughals largely have a Hindustani identity. Ethnically, they were mainly Khurasani (Central Asians), belonging to Chugtai tribe. At least, this should hold true for the first three rulers: Babur, Humayun and Akbar.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

We're IVC. Gangetics and Aryans can sod off.

 

[Mr Happy]

Thank you for this post. People need to stop claiming such. We are all Pakistanis and should be proud of your heritage and land.

Pakistan did not exist prior to August 14th, 1947. Therefore it could never have lived under the shadow of India. You perhaps mean the Muslims of the subcontinent.

Turks have not always ruled Turks and Persians have not always ruled Persians. Turks of modern-day Turkey are not native to the land. Turkish tribes began arriving in the Middle East and also began settling in Anatolia (now Turkey) during Arab rule. The most prominent tribe among them appears to have been that of Seljuks. House of Usman (Ottoman) arrived later. Ottoman Empire has not been a completely continuous one. The invasion of Anatolia by Temur Lame temporarily brought Ottoman rule to a halt. Likewise, the Persians have been ruled by the Arabs and also Turks. The last Turkic dynasty to rule Persia was the Qajar Dynasty. They ruled from 1797 to 1925. So they have been fairly recent.



In terms of wealth, the Mughals topped just about everyone. Aurengzeb was possibly the richest man of his time and his Hindustan was also perhaps the most powerful empire. If true, this would be a miraculous and surprising economic recovery as his father, Shahjahan, had more or less bankrupted the Mughal treasury for the construction of no-purpose Taj Mahal (he was also planning a black Taj Mahal from himself). One cannot judge the Mughal economic, military, and political strength merely on their developmental projects in Lahore. The city served as the Empire's capital for a short while under Jahangir (more or less for 12 years). You need to consider their other projects like Agra, Fatehpur Sekri, and most importantly, Delhi.

Historically speaking, the Mughals largely have a Hindustani identity. Ethnically, they were mainly Khurasani (Central Asians), belonging to Chugtai tribe. At least, this should hold true for the first three rulers: Babur, Humayun and Akbar.

Mughal is a Persian term for Mongol.

https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/steingass_query.py?page=1281

People who claim to be Mughal should have some evidence to support their claims.

 

[Esgalduin]

Well, it's improper to claim false ancestry knowingly. Neither should one disparage another person's lineage.

https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2013/07/24/worst-lies-lineage-dreams/

https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2019/06/19/all-people-go-to-adam-eve/

https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2019/11/20/lineage-learn-family-history/

That's assuming that people know their ancestry is a lie and has been a lie for centuries. That simply does not happen. It is far more likely (statistically speaking) for people in Pakistan to claim false ancestry unknowingly than for them to be doing so knowingly. Since it's hard to determine one's ancestry to an exact ethnicity, it's much better to not put any stock in it either way.

 

[Old School]

Pakistan did not exist prior to August 14th, 1947. Therefore it could never have lived under the shadow of India. You perhaps mean the Muslims of the subcontinent.

Turks have not always ruled Turks and Persians have not always ruled Persians. Turks of modern-day Turkey are not native to the land. Turkish tribes began arriving in the Middle East and also began settling in Anatolia (now Turkey) during Arab rule. The most prominent tribe among them appears to have been that of Seljuks. House of Usman (Ottoman) arrived later. Ottoman Empire has not been a completely continuous one. The invasion of Anatolia by Temur Lame temporarily brought Ottoman rule to a halt. Likewise, the Persians have been ruled by the Arabs and also Turks. The last Turkic dynasty to rule Persia was the Qajar Dynasty. They ruled from 1797 to 1925. So they have been fairly recent.



In terms of wealth, the Mughals topped just about everyone. Aurengzeb was possibly the richest man of his time and his Hindustan was also perhaps the most powerful empire. If true, this would be a miraculous and surprising economic recovery as his father, Shahjahan, had more or less bankrupted the Mughal treasury for the construction of no-purpose Taj Mahal (he was also planning a black Taj Mahal from himself). One cannot judge the Mughal economic, military, and political strength merely on their developmental projects in Lahore. The city served as the Empire's capital for a short while under Jahangir (more or less for 12 years). You need to consider their other projects like Agra, Fatehpur Sekri, and most importantly, Delhi.

Historically speaking, the Mughals largely have a Hindustani identity. Ethnically, they were mainly Khurasani (Central Asians), belonging to Chugtai tribe. At least, this should hold true for the first three rulers: Babur, Humayun and Akbar.

Sultan Aurangzeb Alamgir was among the most successful Muslim ruler in history in term of economy, administration and military. Thanks to him, Muslims in South Asia did go extinct. It is also to note that the name 'Mughal' was never an official one. Officiallly, they called themselves 'Gurkani' which means 'son in law'.

 

[SABRE]

Mughal is a Persian term for Mongol.

https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/steingass_query.py?page=1281

People who claim to be Mughal should have some evidence to support their claims.

I did say Chughtai tribe --> descendants of Chughtai Khan, son of Genghis Khan --> Mongol.

 

[Mr Happy]

Pakistan did not exist prior to August 14th, 1947. Therefore it could never have lived under the shadow of India. You perhaps mean the Muslims of the subcontinent.



Turks have not always ruled Turks and Persians have not always ruled Persians. Turks of modern-day Turkey are not native to the land. Turkish tribes began arriving in the Middle East and also began settling in Anatolia (now Turkey) during Arab rule. The most prominent tribe among them appears to have been that of Seljuks. House of Usman (Ottoman) arrived later. Ottoman Empire has not been a completely continuous one. The invasion of Anatolia by Temur Lame temporarily brought Ottoman rule to a halt. Likewise, the Persians have been ruled by the Arabs and also Turks. The last Turkic dynasty to rule Persia was the Qajar Dynasty. They ruled from 1797 to 1925. So they have been fairly recent.



In terms of wealth, the Mughals topped just about everyone. Aurengzeb was possibly the richest man of his time and his Hindustan was also perhaps the most powerful empire. If true, this would be a miraculous and surprising economic recovery as his father, Shahjahan, had more or less bankrupted the Mughal treasury for the construction of no-purpose Taj Mahal (he was also planning a black Taj Mahal from himself). One cannot judge the Mughal economic, military, and political strength merely on their developmental projects in Lahore. The city served as the Empire's capital for a short while under Jahangir (more or less for 12 years). You need to consider their other projects like Agra, Fatehpur Sikri, and most importantly, Delhi.

Historically, the Mughals largely have a Hindustani identity. Ethnically, they were mainly Khurasani (Central Asians), belonging to Chugtai tribe. At least, this should hold true for the first three rulers: Babur, Humayun and Akbar.

That's assuming that people know their ancestry is a lie and has been a lie for centuries. That simply does not happen. It is far more likely (statistically speaking) for people in Pakistan to claim false ancestry unknowingly than for them to be doing so knowingly. Since it's hard to determine one's ancestry to an exact ethnicity, it's much better to not put any stock in it either way.

I did say Chughtai tribe --> descendants of Chughtai Khan, son of Genghis Khan --> Mongol.

Ok. I asserted it.

That's assuming that people know their ancestry is a lie and has been a lie for centuries. That simply does not happen. It is far more likely (statistically speaking) for people in Pakistan to claim false ancestry unknowingly than for them to be doing so knowingly. Since it's hard to determine one's ancestry to an exact ethnicity, it's much better to not put any stock in it either way.

If a person does not know that is different. It is the ones who knowingly claim false ancestry, I lack respect for.

 

[mikkix]

I had a Jordanian friend who once told me jokingly, there are more sayyids in Pakistan and India than there are in all of the Arab world combined [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] that should tell you the reality of sayyids in the Indian Subcontinent

When persecution of prophets lineage begins, they mostly migrated from Arab land. What do you think about Mohammad bin Qasim who came to Sindh for what?
You cannot put all Syeds into the same category. Because you have a mixed ancestory like chaat cholay chana papri doesn't means that all are same. Sorry for what i said Just.

 

[Esgalduin]

If a person does not know that is different. It is the ones who knowingly claim false ancestry, I lack respect for.

Yeah, that's logical. I can understand it, but I too do not respect it.

 

[Mr Happy]

When persecution of prophets lineage begins, they mostly migrated from Arab land. What do you think about Mohammad bin Qasim who came to Sindh for what?
You cannot put all Syeds into the same category. Because you have a mixed ancestory like chaat cholay chana papri doesn't means that all are same. Sorry for what i said Just.

I do not think they mean everyone. They mean those who knowingly falsely claim to be of Arab ancestry.

 

[Aspen]

Pakistan did not exist prior to August 14th, 1947. Therefore it could never have lived under the shadow of India. You perhaps mean the Muslims of the subcontinent.

Turks have not always ruled Turks and Persians have not always ruled Persians. Turks of modern-day Turkey are not native to the land. Turkish tribes began arriving in the Middle East and also began settling in Anatolia (now Turkey) during Arab rule. The most prominent tribe among them appears to have been that of Seljuks. House of Usman (Ottoman) arrived later. Ottoman Empire has not been a completely continuous one. The invasion of Anatolia by Temur Lame temporarily brought Ottoman rule to a halt. Likewise, the Persians have been ruled by the Arabs and also Turks. The last Turkic dynasty to rule Persia was the Qajar Dynasty. They ruled from 1797 to 1925. So they have been fairly recent.

Even during Arab conquest of Persia, Persians still kept their own unique language and traditions. So in a sense, you could make the case that Persians heavily resisted being ruled by anyone else by being fiercely independent. Similar story is true for Turks although Persians have been around longer than the Seljuks and Ottomans.

 

[Esgalduin]

I was genetically engineered by ISI's applied sciences division.

The Applied Sciences Division has since been renamed to Ghazi Ibtidaa Division. Also, for spilling state secrets, a black Vigo has been sent for you and myself. To save on fuel, they're picking us both up in the same car.